Are Lockdowns Effective in Managing Pandemics?

Ethics of Nudging in the COVID-19 Crisis and the Necessary Return to the Principles of Shared Decision Making: A Critical Review

Nudging, a controversial technique for modifying people's behavior in a predictable way, is claimed to preserve freedom of choice while simultaneously influencing it. Nudging had been largely confined to situations such as promoting healthy eating choices but has been employed in the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis in a shift towards measures that involve significantly less choice, such as shoves and behavioral prods. Shared decision making (SDM), a method for direct involvement and autonomy, is an alternative approach to communicate risk. Predominantly peer-reviewed scientific publications from standard literature databases like PubMed, PsycInfo, and Psyndex were evaluated in a narrative review. The so-called fear nudges, as well as the dissemination of strongly emotionalizing or moralizing messages can lead to intense psycho-physical stress. The use of these nudges by specialized units during the COVID-19 pandemic generated a societal atmosphere of fear that precipitated a deterioration of the mental and physical health of the population. Major recommendations of the German COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO) study, which are based on elements of nudging and coercive measures, do not comply with ethical principles, basic psychological principles, or evidence-based data. SDM was misused in the COVID-19 crisis, which helped to achieve one-sided goals of governments. The emphasis on utilitarian thinking is criticized and the unethical behavior of decision makers is explained by both using the concept of moral disengagement and the maturity level of coping strategies. There should be a return to an open-ended, democratic, and pluralistic scientific debate without using nudges. It is therefore necessary to return to the origins of SDM.

Impact of COVID-19 on patterns of drug utilization: A case study at national hospital

BACKGROUND

The Coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and the corresponding mitigation measures have had a discernible impact on drug utilization among outpatients. However, limited research exists on the prescription trends in the elderly population during the pandemic period in Viet Nam.

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to analyze the effects of COVID-19 on outpatient drug utilization patterns at a national geriatric hospital in Ho Chi Minh City before and after the early onset of the pandemic.

METHODS

Data was collected from the prescriptions and administration claims, encompassing the period from January 2016 to December 2022. The dataset was divided into two periods: Period 1: January 2016 to December 2020 and Period 2: January 2021 to December 2022. The drug utilization was measured using DDD/1000P (defined daily doses-DDD per 1000 prescriptions) on a monthly basis. The analysis employed interrupted time series using Autoregressive Integrated Moving Average (ARIMA) to detect changes in drug use levels and rates.

RESULTS

A total of 1,060,507 and 644,944 outpatient prescriptions from Thong Nhat Hospital were included in Period 1 and Period 2, respectively. The median age of the patients were 58 in Period 1 and 67 years old in Period 2. The most common comorbidities were dyslipidemia, hypertension, and diabetes mellitus. In terms of medication utilization, cardiovascular drugs were the most frequently prescribed, followed by drugs active on the digestive and hormonal systems. The study observed significant surges in the number of prescriptions and the average number of drugs per prescription. However, there were no significant changes in the overall consumption of all drugs. Among the drug groups related to the cardiovascular system, three subgroups experienced a sudden and significant increase: cardiac therapy, beta-blocking agents, and antihypertensives, with increasing consumption levels of 1,177.73 [CI 95%: 79.29; 2,276.16], 73.32 [CI 95%: 28.18; 118.46], and 36.70 [CI 95%: 6.74; 66.66] DDD/1000P, respectively. On the other hand, there was a significant monthly decrease of -31.36 [CI 95%: -57.02; -5.70] DDD/1000P in the consumption of anti-inflammatory and antirheumatic products. Interestingly, there was a significant increase of 74.62 [CI 95%: -0.36; 149.60] DDD/1000P in the use of antigout preparations.

CONCLUSION

COVID-19 resulted in a sudden, non-significant increase in overall drug consumption levels among outpatients. Notably, our findings highlight significant increases in the utilization of three drug groups related to the cardiovascular system, specifically cardiac therapy, beta-blocking agents, and antihypertensives. Intriguingly, there was a statistically significant increase in the consumption of antigout preparations, despite a decline in the monthly consumption rate of non-steroidal anti-flammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Further studies in the following years are necessary to provide a more comprehensive understanding of the impact of COVID-19 on outpatient drug utilization patterns.

Why Similar Policies Resulted In Different COVID-19 Outcomes: How Responsiveness And Culture Influenced Mortality Rates

In the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic, per capita mortality varied by more than a hundredfold across countries, despite most implementing similar nonpharmaceutical interventions. Factors such as policy stringency, gross domestic product, and age distribution explain only a small fraction of mortality variation. To address this puzzle, we built on a previously validated pandemic model in which perceived risk altered societal responses affecting SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Using data from more than 100 countries, we found that a key factor explaining heterogeneous death rates was not the policy responses themselves but rather variation in responsiveness. Responsiveness measures how sensitive communities are to evolving mortality risks and how readily they adopt nonpharmaceutical interventions in response, to curb transmission. We further found that responsiveness correlated with two cultural constructs across countries: uncertainty avoidance and power distance. Our findings show that more responsive adoption of similar policies saves many lives, with important implications for the design and implementation of responses to future outbreaks.

Revisiting the rationale of mandatory masking

In this perspective, we review the evidence for the efficacy of face masks to reduce the transmission of respiratory viruses, specifically severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), and consider the value of mandating universal mask wearing against the widespread negative impacts that have been associated with such measures. Before the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic, it was considered that there was little to no benefit in healthy people wearing masks as prophylaxis against becoming infected or as unwitting vectors of viral transmission. This accepted policy was hastily reversed early on in the pandemic, when districts and countries throughout the world imposed stringent masking mandates. Now, more than three years since the start of the pandemic, the amassed studies that have investigated the use of masks to reduce transmission of SARS-CoV-2 (or other pathogens) have led to conclusions that are largely inconsistent and contradictory. There is no statistically significant or unambiguous scientific evidence to justify mandatory masking for general, healthy populations with the intention of lessening the viral spread. Even if mask wearing could potentially reduce the transmission of SARS-CoV-2 in individual cases, this needs to be balanced against the physical, psychological and social harms associated with forced mask wearing, not to mention the negative impact of innumerable disposed masks entering our fragile environment. Given the lack of unequivocal scientific proof that masks have any effect on reducing transmission, together with the evident harms to people and the environment through the use of masks, it is our opinion that the mandatory use of face masks in the general population is unjustifiable and must be abandoned in future pandemic countermeasures policies.

COVID-19 Pandemic: Did Strict Mobility Restrictions Save Lives and Healthcare Costs in Maharashtra, India?

INTRODUCTION

Maharashtra, India, remained a hotspot during the COVID-19 pandemic. After the initial complete lockdown, the state slowly relaxed restrictions. We aim to estimate the lockdown's impact on COVID-19 cases and associated healthcare costs.

METHODS

Using daily case data for 84 days (9 March-31 May 2020), we modeled the epidemic's trajectory and predicted new cases for different phases of lockdown. We fitted log-linear models to estimate the growth rate, basic (R₀), daily reproduction number (R_e), and case doubling time. Based on pre-restriction and Phase 1 R₀, we predicted new cases for the rest of the restriction phases, and we compared them with the actual number of cases during each phase. Furthermore, using the published and gray literature, we estimated the costs and savings of implementing these restrictions for the projected period, and we performed a sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The estimated median R₀ during the different phases was 1.14 (95% CI: 0.85, 1.45) for pre-lockdown, 1.67 (95% CI: 1.50, 1.82) for phase 1 (strict mobility restrictions), 1.24 (95% CI: 1.12, 1.35) for phase 2 (extension of phase 1 with no restrictions on agricultural and essential services), 1.12 (95% CI: 1.01, 1.23) for phase 3 (extension of phase 2 with mobility relaxations in areas with few infections), and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.99, 1.123) for phase 4 (implementation of localized lockdowns in high-case-load areas with fewer restrictions on other areas), respectively. The corresponding doubling time rate for cases (in days) was 17.78 (95% CI: 5.61, -15.19), 3.87 (95% CI: 3.15, 5.00), 10.37 (95% CI: 7.10, 19.30), 20.31 (95% CI: 10.70, 212.50), and 45.56 (95% CI: 20.50, -204.52). For the projected period, the cases could have reached 631,819 without the lockdown, as the actual reported number of cases was 64,975. From a healthcare perspective, the estimated total value of averted cases was INR 194.73 billion (USD 2.60 billion), resulting in net cost savings of 84.05%. The Incremental Cost-Effectiveness Ratio (ICER) per Quality Adjusted Life Year (QALY) for implementing the lockdown, rather than observing the natural course of the pandemic, was INR 33,812.15 (USD 450.83).

CONCLUSION

Maharashtra's early public health response delayed the pandemic and averted new cases and deaths during the first wave of the pandemic. However, we recommend that such restrictions be carefully used while considering the local socio-economic realities in countries like India.

There is a need for more precise models to assess the determinants of health crises like COVID-19

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on global mortality. While the causal relationship between SARS-CoV-2 and the anomalous increase in deaths is established, more precise and complex models are needed to determine the exact weight of epidemiological factors involved. Indeed, COVID-19 behavior is influenced by a wide range of variables, including demographic characteristics, population habits and behavior, healthcare performance, and environmental and seasonal risk factors. The bidirectional causality between impacted and impacting aspects, as well as confounding variables, complicates efforts to draw clear, generalizable conclusions regarding the effectiveness and cost-benefit ratio of non-pharmaceutical health countermeasures. Thus, it is imperative that the scientific community and health authorities worldwide develop comprehensive models not only for the current pandemic but also for future health crises. These models should be implemented locally to account for micro-differences in epidemiological characteristics that may have relevant effects. It is important to note that the lack of a universal model does not imply that local decisions have been unjustified, and the request to decrease scientific uncertainty does not mean denying the evidence of the effectiveness of the countermeasures adopted. Therefore, this paper must not be exploited to denigrate either the scientific community or the health authorities.

A step towards reinvigorating the COVID-19 response: an intra-action review of the WHO Regional Office for Africa Incident Management Support Team

The WHO Regional Office for Africa (AFRO) COVID-19 Incident Management Support Team (IMST) was first established on 21 January 2020 to coordinate the response to the pandemic in line with the Emergency Response Framework and has undergone three modifications based on intra-action reviews (IAR). An IAR of the WHO AFRO COVID-19 IMST was conducted to document best practices, challenges, lessons learnt and areas for improvement from the start of 2021 to the end of the third wave in November 2021. In addition, it was designed to contribute to improving the response to COVID-19 in the Region. An IAR design as proposed by WHO, encompassing qualitative approaches to collecting critical data and information, was used. It employed mixed methods of data collection: document reviews, online surveys, focus group discussions and key informant interviews. A thematic analysis of the data focused on four thematic areas, namely operations of IMST, data and information management, human resource management and institutional framework/governance. Areas of good practice identified, included the provision of guidelines, protocols and technical expertise, resource mobilisation, logistics management, provision of regular updates, timely situation reporting, timely deployment and good coordination. Some challenges identified included a communication gap; inadequate emergency personnel; lack of scientific updates; and inadequate coordination with partners. The identified strong points/components are the pivot for informed decisions and actions for reinvigorating the future response coordination mechanism.

Against Authority: The Bioethics of Ivermectin Use for COVID-19 Infection

BACKGROUND

The COVID-19 pandemic has brought new ethical challenges to both health care professionals and the general public. Among the ethical problems amplified during this period were the making of medical decisions to quickly introduce some drugs into therapeutic practice with unproven or insufficiently proven effects (such as ivermectin), the validity of drug testing, and the allocation of limited resources.

FIELDS OF UNCERTAINTY

The COVID-19 pandemic brought to the attention of the entire scientific world a new problem, which exceeded the guidelines and rules known until then. Out of the desire to quickly solve this medical problem, a series of measures were taken, however not sufficiently validated in scientific terms; the recommendations regarding the use of drugs known for their properties to treat a greater number of conditions, such as ivermectin, was tried.

DATA SOURCES

A narrative review of the specialized literature was carried out using keywords such as COVID-19, ivermectin, ethics, and off-label medication from Scopus and Google Scholar but also of official documents developed at the international level (World Health Organization).

ETHICS AND THERAPEUTIC ADVANCES

The off-label use of ivermectin alone or in combination with other medications during COVID pandemic raised problems related to the demonstration of its effectiveness, but also to ethics, starting from the expectations that both the medical staff and the population had of it. Ivermectin therapy was also evaluated by analyzing the behavior of ivermectin based on ethical principles (nonmaleficence, beneficence, and respect for one's autonomy) or on justice. Even in times of pandemic, exceptionalism must not triumph, and finding an effective treatment must be done through studies that respect ethical standard.

CONCLUSIONS

The failures or rather lack of success in decision making during the pandemic showed that alongside scientific knowledge and the development of health policies, it is necessary to constantly evaluate the measures and decisions from an ethical point of view, and the prevention of slippages and abuses is not only necessary but even mandatory.